From: "Robert G Lewis" 

I really don't think it has been twisted. The N.G. is not able to respond
to local disasters anywhere near as well as it use to be.  The States have
been raising this point for several years now.  I see a very real problem
with the lack of equipment and the failure to replenish the equipment. At
the very least this means units in the states will have less training with
the equipment they will use in combat or training with  different equipment
than they would use in the Iraq Theatre.

To me that is indicative of either poor planning or poor judgment by some
in the administration. Personally I think the Administration has way under
budgeted for the occupation and war. I recall one Official saying the
occupation would pay for itself and he was very adamant that the US would
not be paying for the occupation. As I recall even when asked about worst
case scenarios he was still adamant that the occupation would pay for
itself.

I do think that the states need to plan on finding other resources than the
Guard ( which they have historically been able to use) for emergences. I
would hope that the states are looking to increase the resources of State
Defense Forces, state militias not subject to federalization. That would be
one way to keep resources available for local problems.


"Mark"  wrote in message
news:46464ae9$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> Fair enough Bob. My thoughts are the reduced availability of the National
> Guard here at home is probably not anywhere near what it is twisted into
> and/or the implied point of view of inability to respond (this was
> addressed early on the thread) and even if it were, their deployment over
> there is more valuable to the future of our country than if they weren't.
> IMHO.
>
>
> "Robert G Lewis"  wrote in message
> news:46464769{at}w3.nls.net...
>> Or you could actually address the points raised and reply with actual
>> information.
>>
>>
>>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5